Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
These are not equally simple or complex explanations.

They are also not the explanations at issue.

Luke and Paul believed God spoke to Paul. You do not. Each position has an equal number of assumptions: the God of their faith is real on one hand and the God of their faith is not real on the other.

The idea that a particular deity does not exist is not an assumption so much as a default position (you presumably hold this position for every other deity you do not recognize as existing).

That's nothing to do with the credibility that either Paul (assuming he existed) made his claims in good faith, or that Luke (no matter if Paul existed or not) wrote his story in good faith. For Luke to have written the account and have been honest about does not require anything actually be true about Paul or the Christian god. They're immaterial to if he was making writing the testimony honestly or not.

I agree with you. It is entirely plausible that the author of Acts actually believed that what he was writing was true.

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree with you. It is entirely plausible that the author of Acts actually believed that what he was writing was true.

Then what in the world has been your point for the last 2 or so pages?

My original point was pretty dull and non-controversial, although I should not have used the word "fictional" but instead "factually untrue".

 jasper76 wrote:
@OP: It's certainly possible that Paul saw a meteor in the sky, and heard the voice of a deity (or imagined that he did).

The simplest explanation to the story of Paul, however, is that it is fictional.

We have a extraordinary ancient story of a supernatural event. It is simpler IMO to dismiss the supernatural portion of the story as factually untrue, than to go out on a quest for an elaborate theory about a meteoric fireball in the sky, and the effect such a phenomenon might have on the human body and brain, as the author of the OP article describes.

Again that comes down to "Paul saw something" and "Paul did not exist/saw nothing" -- which are equally simple. The real issue is your personal disbelief, which implies nothing about the simplicity of either position. This is why I wanted to avoid your repeatedly demonstrated prejudice against religion by reframing the issue as non-religious. Which we can try again: Let's say Ernest claims he was abducted by aliens. All other things being equal, which explanation requires less assumptions: something happened to Ernest that he misinterpreted or that Ernest is lying? They require the same amount of assumptions: (a) Ernest thinks he is telling the truth or (b) Ernest is knowingly lying.

I'm sorry to not answer your question directly, but we are asking two different questions.

I will continue with your metaphor of Ernest and the UFO, so that hopefully you see what I mean.

Ernest tells me he was abducted by aliens.

Given that there is no compelling evidence that intelligent aliens have ever visited this planet, is it simpler to conclude that there were no aliens? Or is it simpler to devise an alternative theory about unusual meteorological phenomenon to explain what happened?

It has nothing to do with whether aliens exist and visit earth. The alternatives are, Ernest is lying and Ernest thinks he is telling the truth.

Ernest's intentions are immaterial to whether he was factually abducted by aliens.

Likewise, the author of Acts intentions are immaterial to whether the stories contained therein are factually true.

 Manchu wrote:
It has nothing to do with whether aliens exist and visit earth. The alternatives are, Ernest is lying and Ernest thinks he is telling the truth.

To be fair, he's already relented on this point:

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree with you. It is entirely plausible that the author of Acts actually believed that what he was writing was true.

 jasper76 wrote:
Ernest's intentions are immaterial to whether he was factually abducted by aliens.

The issue in our analogy is not whether Ernest was actually abducted by aliens precisely because the guy in OP article does not care whether God actually spoke to God.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue in our analogy is not whether Ernest was actually abducted by aliens precisely because the guy in OP article does not care whether God actually spoke to God.

Right, what I am saying is this professor is most likely chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.

 Chongara wrote:
To be fair, he's already relented on this point:

But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.

 jasper76 wrote:
Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.

The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event. He assumes there was some kind of event.

It is no simpler to assume no event happened than it is to assume some event happened.

 Manchu wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
To be fair, he's already relented on this point:

But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.

 jasper76 wrote:
Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.

The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event.

I believe you are inserting the word "entirely" into my mouth.

 jasper76 wrote:
I believe you are inserting the word "entirely" into my mouth.

So clarify, we'll see if it matters.

 Manchu wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
To be fair, he's already relented on this point:

But, as he explained, that is unrelated to the point he is trying to make -- that it is simpler to assume that the story is entirely non-factual than it is to assume any part of the story is factual.

 jasper76 wrote:
Right, what I am saying is this professor is chasing his tail, because, in all likelihood, there was no supernatural event to begin with.

The professor does not claim there was a supernatural event. He assumes there was some kind of event.

It is no simpler to assume no event happened than it is to assume some event happened.

Right. He assumes that a supernatural story might be rooted in a meteorological phenomenon similar to one recorded in recent history.

I'm saying he's wasting his time trying to find a natural explanation for an event that most likely never transpired, because there is no compelling evidence that supernatural events occur.

The guy in the article is saying Paul could have seen something natural and misinterpreted it as supernatural.

A person seeing something is not a supernatural story.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I believe you are inserting the word "entirely" into my mouth.

So clarify, we'll see if it matters.

I have no idea what ratio of truth/falsity that story is made up of. What do you think? I certainly think that the supernatural claims of the story, a man becoming illuminated from the heavens and spoken to by a deity, is pretty low on the probability meter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The guy in the article is saying Paul could have seen something natural and misinterpreted it as supernatural.

A person seeing something is not a supernatural story.

I know. He is trying to produce natural explanations for a legendary event that most likely never transpired.

There is no reason to believe Paul did not see something, whether or not you disbelieve in God or that God spoke to Paul.

 Manchu wrote:
There is no reason to believe Paul did not see something, whether or not you disbelieve in God or that God spoke to Paul.

There sort of is, though, when you consider the volume of supernatural claims made in the same book. In my worldview, supernatural claims compound to the improbability that any individual claim in the set of claims might be true, if that makes any sense.

Paul is not a fictional character, like Hercules or Thor*. Given Paul was a historic person, the notion that he saw a light is not part of a supernatural claim. His own claim, related by Luke, that God spoke to him is. The OP article is not concerned about that latter claim; in fact, it seems to perfunctorily dismiss it. The only claim the guy cares about is that Paul saw something, particularly some kind of bright light. Your argument is that it is simpler to assume Paul saw nothing than it is to assume he saw something.

* One of my original examples was Dracula but I don't want to have to explain the difference between Vlad III of Wallachia and Dracula the vampire.

 Manchu wrote:
Paul is not a fictional character, like Hercules or Thor. Given Paul was a historic person, the notion that he saw a light is not part of a supernatural claim. His own claim, related by Luke, that God spoke to him is. The OP article is not concerned about that latter claim; in fact, it seems to perfunctorily dismiss it. The only claim the guy cares about is that Paul saw something, particularly some kind of bright light. Your argument is that it is simpler to assume Paul saw nothing than it is to assume he saw something.

Correct. Paul, as well as the author of Acts, made a whole lot of supernatural claims.

Lets go back to Ernest. He tells you he was abducted by aliens once...you might think that something wierd actually might have happened outside of Ernest's brain/body.

A month passes, and Ernest comes to you with a compilation of events loaded with various things you find highly improbable.

Be serious when answering this if you please. Is it now simpler to assume that (a) Ernest is lying about these things, (b) these phenomena are attributed to problems with Ernest's nervous system, or (c) any one of these events actually happened?

By the way, to continue with our analogy, we must add that we have never, ever met Ernest before.

(A) and (B) are the only relevant choices for me. (I would discount (C) entirely.) (A) and (B) require the same amount of assumptions: only one. (A) requires that I assume Ernest believes he is telling the truth. (B) requires that I assume Ernest is lying. Neither explanation is more simple than the other.

Whether I ultimately go with (A) or (B) probably has to do with my prejudice regarding people who claim to have been abducted by aliens; e.g., whether I think these people are most likely to be motivated by getting attention.

I think we got the As and Bs switched around, but I'll follow your lead:

(A) requires one assumption: Ernest is lying.
(B) requires two assumptions: Ernest believes he is telling the truth. Something is wrong with Ernest.

In any case I discount C, as well, and also with the Biblical counterpart, and I think the professor is chasing ghosts in his quest to explain Paul's light from the heavens.

Yeah, I switched them - sorry.

(B) does not require that I assume something is wrong with Ernest any more than it requires that aliens really did abduct him. If I assume Ernest believes he is telling the truth, the next step is to consider whether (given everything else I know) his account is probable. Since I agree with you that there is no credible evidence that intelligent extraterrestrial life even exists much less that such beings have visited Earth, I would conclude (1) that Ernest was not abducted by aliens and (2) there must be some other explanation for what Ernest's sincerely believes he experienced. All of this is a further train of thought from the assumption that Ernest believes he is telling the truth; not required to assume as much.

I find folks are talking past each other. There's a distinct and definitive difference between the absence of proof and the proof of absence. One cannot draw any conclusion, for or against, as situation of the former while one can draw conclusions on the latter.

Also, to the finding succor bit, I'd suggest Hellenistic philosophy, specifically Stoicism. It's the rational zen, of sorts. Religion does not beget morality and morality does not beget religion. You can have a philosophy of life that defines good and virtue independent to spiritual beliefs.

 TheKbob wrote:
difference between the absence of proof and the proof of absence

That is not really the crux of the present debate.

 Manchu wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
difference between the absence of proof and the proof of absence

That is not really the crux of the present debate.

There is no proof of Paul, that is 100% concrete. And no proof of an astrological or spiritual based event, either. There is also no proof that Paul didn't exist. Etc. Etc.

Thus no relevant conclusion can be made.

@Manchu Techincally, (B) as I stated it did require you to assume something was wrong with Ernest

(b) these phenomena are attributed to problems with Ernest's nervous system

But perhaps you interpreted my B another way.

Anyway, I'm suddenly confuzzled.

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case I discount C, as well, and also with the Biblical counterpart, and I think the professor is chasing ghosts in his quest to explain Paul's light from the heavens.

The professor in question also discounts possibility (C) as far as the story of Paul's conversion goes. He only assumes Paul saw some kind of light.

 jasper76 wrote:
But perhaps you interpreted my B another way.

Yes, I specifically reject your compound assumption as explained above. (B) should be only "Ernest believes he is telling the truth."

 TheKbob wrote:
There is no proof of Paul

False. I think what you mean is no document outside of the Christian tradition corroborates Paul's existence. But, as in academia, there is no debate ITT that Paul was a historical person.

So in my worldview, the more tall tales someone tells, the veracity of any one of those tales becomes more and more suspect. And I apply that same skepticism to literature.